>As usual, John is spare with words here. No one will accuse him of
>being epexegetical! Nor is water mentioned in this sentence.

But, george, it is mentioned in the preceding verse. In fact, there is
neither difficulty nor lack of clarity in this narrative. The purification
jars would have been filled at Jesus' order from the nearest well.

> The NUN
>would appear to be a sequencer in his instructions to the servants,
>which would implicate the pots as the locus of whatever liquid is
>being drawn. [Now, (having filled the pots), draw (from them} and be
>carrying...]
>

Yes, the "now" is merely a temporal marker, an indicator of sequence.

>> Does the verb (and context) demand that the water is being drawn
>> from a place other than the jars which have just been filled?

The sequence of vv 7-8 indicate that the jars were empty- Jesus ordered them
to be filled, they were, and the water was drawn from them. On the way to
the chief steward the water became wine. That is the whole gist of the
narrative.

>Does
>> the NUN indicate that in addition to drawing the water for the jars
>> that now water should be drawn (again) and taken to the steward?
>

No.

>Again, water is not indicated at this point in the telling.
>

But it is clearly presupposed in a natural straightforward reading of the text.

>> Or does the context suggest this is all reading way too much into a
>> few words. The water was drawn from the jars at hand and not from
>> another location.
>

The jars were filled with water from a well (most likely) and then the water
in the jars was transported to the steward.

>No and Yes, respectively. "Reading into" is, I believe, following my
>recent list queries, 'eisegetical', and thus a huge no-no, and
>inviting pejoration. Yet when text is spare, as in John, as well as
>enigmatic and puzzling, about all one can do is spend some major time
>in prayer and thought. Good things will happen!
>

But, George, there is nothing spare or enigmatic here, at all!

>If the water is being drawn from, say, a nearby well, rather than the
>pots, then what, according to Carson, is the implication for the
>meaning of this sentence? I'd be interested in seeing where he 'goes'
>with that idea.
>

Where else would the water come from? The disciples armpits? (yes, insert
:) here)

>And welcome out from lurking!
>

Indeed! The less lurkers the better for us all. (meaning, in case someone
misreads, that all should participate and none should remain silent).